Download Samuele Rocca

SCRIPTA JUDAICA CRACOVIENSIA
Vol. 12 (2014)
pp. 7–24
doi: 10.4467/20843925SJ.14.001.2807
In the Beginning: the Jews as a Minority Group
in the Middle and the Late Republican Period
Samuele Rocca
(Ariel University, Ariel)
Key words: Rome, Middle Republic, Late Republic, Jews, Cicero Pro Flacco, Josephus
Abstract: In this article I shall present an in-depth study of the condition of the Jews living in
the city of Rome during the Middle and Late Republic. I shall make use mainly of epigraphic and
literary sources, such as Appianus, Cicero, Josephus, Philo, Suetonius, and Varro. It seems to me,
according to a careful reading of epigraphic data as well as the literary evidence presented by
Valerius Maximus, that the first record of a Jewish presence in Rome ought to be dated no earlier
than the second half of the second century B.C.E. According to Philo, only by the middle of the
first century B.C.E. is there evidence of a much larger Jewish presence in Rome. Most of the Jews
arrived as slaves in the wake of Pompey’s conquest of the Hasmonean kingdom in 63 B.C.E. and
in the aftermath, during Aulus Gabinius’ consulate in 58 B.C.E. Yet there were also some liberti
and a few peregrini, or immigrants. Most of them probably settled in the Subura. A hint of how
Judaism and Jews were perceived during the Late Republic is given by the writings of Varro and
Cicero. It seems that Varro was very impressed by the lack of images in the Jewish religion, an
attitude which suggested a certain similarity to earlier Roman cultic practices. On the other hand,
Cicero’s Pro Flacco reflects a negative attitude towards Judaism. Judaism is therefore characterized as a Barbarian superstition, opposed to Rome’s traditional values. It seems that the Jews as
a group played a very negligible part, yet they were active in the politics of the Late Republic.
A careful reading of Cicero’s Pro Flacco can show that during this period Jews still had no communitarian institutions, although they grouped together. Moreover, they were probably clientes of
their conqueror patronus, Pompey, and as such they could create political pressure. Most of the
Jews supported Pompey until the battle of Pharsalus. However, another group did form, which
supported Aulus Gabinius, who had once been a cliens of Pompey. Later on, when Gabinius
transferred his allegiance from Pompey to Julius Caesar during the Civil War, most of the Jews of
Rome did the same, and switched their allegiance, following the steps of their leader in Judaea,
the High Priest Hyrcanus II. According to a careful reading of a passage of Josephus’ Antiquities, which reports the decree of Publius Servilius Isauricus to the city of Parium, Julius Caesar
recognized the Jewish communities, till then informal institutions, as collegia licita through the
Lex Iulia.
8
SSamuelSaSamu
1. The Middle Republic: The Beginning of the Jewish Settlement in
Rome
Most historians, such as Leon,1 link the beginning of the Jewish presence in Rome to
the embassy sent by Judah the Maccabee to Rome, headed by Eupolemus Ben Jochanan,
and Jason Ben Eleazar, probably two Jewish aristocratic priests from Jerusalem who
knew the ways of the world. Indeed, this embassy was probably the earliest record of any
contact between Jews and the Roman Republic. The two ambassadors arrived in Rome,
and there they concluded an alliance with the Roman Republic.2 Yet it is a mistake to
see the visit of a deputation as evidence for the existence of a Jewish population. These
ambassadors, once their diplomatic mission was finished, probably came back to Judaea.
The Jewish embassy can hardly be considered as proof that Jews resided in Rome or in
Roman Italy in the period. Yet by then, the Roman Republic was already the main power
in the Mediterranean.3 Rome was thus already a center of immigration from the western
and eastern Mediterranean.
And yet epigraphic as well as literary evidence points to the presence of Jews in
Rome only some years later, in the second half of the second century B.C.E. A sepulchral
inscription dated to the end of the second century B.C.E. and the beginning of the first
century B.C.E. records the names of the liberti Marcus Aronius Zabina, Publius Caesonius Aciba and Publius Caesonius Stephanus.4 Two of these liberti bear unmistakable
Semitic names: Zabina and Aciba. The third, Stephanus, has a Greek name normally
found in the Late Hellenistic East. Aciba, or Akiba, is definitely a Jewish name. The
other two liberti, Zabina and Stephanus, bear names that indicate an Eastern Hellenistic
origin. Were these two liberti also Jews? The fact that they are associated with someone
with a Jewish name makes it possible. Moreover, the sepulchral inscription does not bear
any pagan inscription or image. Their status as liberti indicates that these three people
arrived at Rome as slaves. It is most probable that the various Seleucid campaigns in Judaea, the sack of Jerusalem, in 169-168 B.C.E., as well as the various campaigns against
the Maccabees brought many Jewish prisoners from Judaea on the Mediterranean slave
market. It is possible that some of them ended up in Italy and Rome. This is quite probable, as Delos, the most important slave center of the Eastern Mediterranean, was domi1
Leon 1995: 2-3. See also, although already discussed in the introductory chapter, Momigliano’s constructive critique of Leon’s overview of the history of the Jews at Rome: Momigliano 1961: 21, 38 = Momigliano 1980: 579-582.
2
1 Macc. 8: 23-29; Josephus, BJ 1, 38; AJ 12, 417-419. Successive Hasmoneans rulers renewed the
treaty. Jonathan sent two envoys to Rome – Numenius son of Antiochus and Antipater son of Jason – to renew the treaty with Rome. See 1 Macc. 12, 1-23 and Josephus, AJ 13, 164-170. Simon sent another embassy,
maybe headed by the same Numenius, envoy of Jonathan: 1 Macc. 14, 24 and Josephus, AJ 13, 227. John
Hyrcanus also renewed the alliance with Rome in 132 B.C.E.: Josephus, BJ 1, 194; AJ 14, 137 and 143-144.
In the treaty mentioned by Josephus, the Roman Republic recognized the conquests of Simon the Maccabee.
Therefore, in the period from 161 till 132 B.C.E., Maccabean Judaea sent at least three embassies.
3
Thus, in this period, called by the historians the Middle Republic, Rome was the new dominant Mediterranean power. After the defeat of Hannibal in the Second Punic War, and the total domination of the Western Mediterranean, the Roman Republic waged victorious wars against the powerful Hellenistic monarchies
of Macedonia and the huge Seleucid kingdom, which included Judaea. See Cary – Scullard 1986: 169-171.
4
See Friggeri 2003: 49, fig. 3. See also AE 1991: 138.
In the Beginning: the Jews as a Minority Group in the Middle and the Late Republican Period
9
nated by the Romans. At Delos no fewer than 10,000 slaves could be sold in a single
day. A similar situation is recorded at Delphi. Three inscriptions from Delphi, all of them
referring to Jews freed from slavery, are dated from the first half of the second century
B.C.E. to the end of the century.5 Therefore, these three liberti were possibly Jews from
Judaea, captured by the Seleucids, then sold at the Delos slave market, or elsewhere
in the East, from where they arrived at Rome. Anyway, if these were Jews they were
completely assimilated to the Gentile surroundings, as their trianomina suggests. To be
freed, and pass from the status of slave to that of libertus, as did their contemporaries
at Delphi, they had to take part in a Pagan ceremony. But did they have a choice to get
their freedom? It is therefore possible to speculate that the first Jews that arrived at Rome
in this period were slaves. However, those who were emancipated, and became liberti,
probably lost any contact with the Jewish world. There was no other possibility, as in this
period the number of Jews at Rome would have been minimal.
However, the most important evidence for the presence of Jews at Rome in this period is literary and comes from Valerius Maximus. Valerius Maximus mentions that in
139 B.C.E. the praetor peregrinus Cneius Cornelius Hispalus expelled Chaldaeans, or
astrologers, and Jews.6 In his book, Factorum ac Dictorum Memorabiliorum, De Superstitionibus I. 3.3, Valerius Maximus mentions that in 139 B.C.E. the praetor peregrinus
Cneius Cornelius Hispalus expelled Chaldeans, or astrologers, and Jews. It seems that
Valerius Maximus derives his information from Livy, whose epitomized text does not
report the episode.7 There are two versions of Valerius Maximus’s text. The first text survived in the epitome of Ianuarius Nepotianus. Accordingly, the Chaldaeans were accused
of selling their “foreign science,” while the Jews were accused of “attempting to transmit
their sacred rites to the Romans.” Accordingly, the praetor had the private altars of the
Jews cast down from the foreign places.8 The second version, conserved in the epitome
of Iulius Paris, presents a much more detailed text. First the year in which Cornelius
Hispalus was praetor peregrinus is recorded, in the year of the consulate of P. Popilius
Laenas and L. Calpurnius (139 B.C.E.). Second, the accusations are more detailed. Thus,
the Chaldaean astrologers were “ordered to leave Rome within ten days” as by “a fallacious interpretation of the stars they perturbed fickle and simple minds, thus making
profit of their lies.” The Jews, meanwhile, “attempted to infect Roman customs with the
cult of Jupiter Sabatius.”9 The Jews were only compelled to return to their homes. The
relevant passages in the two epitomae, which deal with the expulsion of the Jews, are
quite problematic. The first passage, in the epitome of Ianuarius Nepotianus, mentions
5
These slaves were freed following a religious ceremony, in which they were sold to Apollo. The first
inscription, dated to 170-156 B.C.E., records the emancipation of Antigona and her daughters, Theodora and
Dorothea. The second inscription, dated to 162 B.C.E., records the emancipation of a certain Ioudaios. The
third act of emancipation, dated to 119 B.C.E., records the emancipation of one Amyntas by Ioudaios, son of
Pindarus. See CIJ I, 512-514, nos. 709-711.
6
See Valerius Maximus, Factorum ac Dictorum Memorabiliorum, De Superstitionibus I. 3.3; Comes
1950: 20ff. It seems that Valerius Maximus derives his information from Livy, whose epitomized text does
not report the episode, cf. Leon 1995: 2-4.
7
See Comes 1950: 20ff.
8
Stern 1974: 357-358, no. 147a. The first epitome of Ianuarius Nepotianus is dated to the fourth century
C.E.
9
Stern 1974: 357-358, no. 147b. The second, more detailed epitome of Iulius Paris, dated to the fourthfifth centuries C.E., is to be preferred.
10
SSamuelSaSamu
that the Jews erected private altars in public places. Yet long before the second half of the
second century, the only altar elevated by Jews stood in the Temple of Jerusalem. So who
raised these altars that the praetor peregrinus had cast down? Jews? According to Bickerman these altars were real altars, erected by Gentiles to honor the Jewish God.10 The
second passage mentions Jupiter Sabatius, a Phrygian deity identified with Dionysus.
The question is obvious: is this a mention of the Jewish God, or is it indeed just a reference to the Phrygian god? The question is important. If the Phrygian god was intended,
those expulsed were just an oriental group of foreigners, who with the erection of altars
in public places perturbed public order. If the Jewish God is mentioned, it seems strange
that there were enough Jews to conduct a campaign of proselytism in this early period.11
According to Levy, Livy, the ultimate source, confuses two senate consulta, one ending
in the expulsion of a group connected with Jupiter Sabazius, probably Phrygians, and the
second ending in the expulsion of Jews.12 Yet it does not seems to me that a decree of
a praetor peregrinus needed support from a senatus consultum. Secondly, the period is
quite late for Livy to have made such a mistake. Last but not least, the possibility argued
by some historians, that the expulsion was caused by the missionary zeal of the embassy sent by Simon, must be outwardly rejected.13 First, the embassy must be dated to
142 B.C.E. and not to 139 B.C.E. And second, no less important, it seems to me quite
out of place to think that the ambassadors would have been so irresponsible to begin an
activity of proselytizing in a city known at the time for its intolerance of foreign customs.
The Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus was not so far away, nor the expulsion of the
Greek philosopher Carneades. Lastly, does the text of Iulius Paris indicate a more informal expulsion? Bickerman rightly argues that the words used by the praetor peregrinus
are very similar to similar edicts of expulsion for Latins and Italics. Latins and Italics
were compelled to leave Rome in 187, 177, 168 and 95 B.C.E., to go back to their domiciles in Italy.14 Therefore, the Jews, or more probably the alien group connected to Jupiter
Sabazius, were just sent away from Rome, not from Italy, which in this period was still
a motley of independent city states and tribes which recognized the leadership and primacy of Rome. The praetor peregrinus had no authority to send anyone away from Italy,
only Rome. To conclude, there is not enough evidence in Valerius Maximus’ text to indicate that an expulsion of Jews took place in 139 B.C.E.15 What is important is that this
passage of Valerius Maximus shows us that, together with few Jews that arrived in Rome
as slaves, there were many others that arrived in Rome by their free will, as immigrants.
Once more this is not surprising. In this period Rome, the most important Mediterranean
power, was already the center of immigration from Italy, the newly conquered provinciae
in the West, and the Greek East. Evidently there were enough Jews to pose a problem
for the praetor peregrinus that decreed their expulsion. It is interesting that Valerius
Maximus presents Jews as part of a religious group, as the Jews are associated with
Chaldaeans, and not as an ethnic group. This could suggest once more that the Jewish
Bickerman 1980: 334-335.
Cumont 1929: 209; Nilsson 1961: 662; Stern 1974: 359-360. Stern stresses the similarity of the name
Sabazius to that of the Jewish G-d Sabaoth. Cf. Schürer 1986: 58ff.
12
J. Levy, Zion VIII 1942-1943: 55ff. (Hebrew); Stern 1974: 359.
13
Stern 1974: 359-360; Schürer 1986: 59.
14
Bickerman 1980: 330.
15
On the possible expulsion of Jews from Rome: Barclay 1998: 285-286; Noy 2000: 41-42.
10
11
In the Beginning: the Jews as a Minority Group in the Middle and the Late Republican Period
11
immigrants were still such a small group that they were not treated as an ethnic group,
like the Italics, Greeks, or Celts, but as a religious group, and that they were expelled on
religious grounds, maybe proselytism. It is probable that for the Roman authorities these
Jews were considered part of the Greek-speaking immigrants from the Hellenistic East,
like the Chaldaeans, both groups incidentally coming from the geographic area dominated by the Seleucid kingdom, without any clear-cut ethnic background. As they spoke
Greek, they were just considered Graeculi.16
Is it possible to determine where Jewish residents lived in the last years of the Middle Republic? In this period the city’s population was circa 200,000 people, rising to
500,000 around 130 B.C.E.17 Enclosed in the Republican Walls, and divided into four
regiones or administrative areas, with a circumference of 11 km, the urbs was not so
impressive as most of the cities in the Greek East, such as Athens, Pergamum, Antiochia
on the Orontes, and of course Alexandria.18 Neither the sepulchral inscriptions, whose
provenance is unknown, nor the literary evidence of Valerius Maximus points to any
specific part of the city. However, as most of the foreigners living in Rome at the time
resided in the Subura – the most important popular neighborhood, located south-east of
the Forum – it is probable that the few Jews living in Rome resided there as well.19 Thus,
the data from the end of the second century B.C.E. indicates that by the end of the Middle Republic there were probably some Jewish individuals living in Rome, liberti and
immigrants, but there is still no evidence of an organized community, even informal, nor
is there evidence of Jews living in Italy outside Rome.
2.A. The Late Republic: the Jewish Settlement
The period from 133 B.C.E. until 27 B.C.E. was dominated in Rome by civil strife,
which often degenerated into civil wars.20 Yet it is important to remember that in this pe16
See Noy 2000. In the second century B.C.E. there were already Celts, coming mainly from Gallia
Narbonensis, p. 205, and from Hispania, p. 206; as well as Greeks, coming from the Greek cities of Southern
Italy, Achaea, and Asia Minor, pp. 223-224, 227, and of course Seleucid Syria, pp. 234-235.
17
Morley 1996: 38.
18
On republican Rome see Robinson 1992; Richardson 1992.
19
The Subura was located between the slopes of the Quirinal and Viminal Hills and the slopes of the
Esquiline Hill. According to tradition, from the reign of Numa Pompilius onwards, the Subura was part of the
so-called Septimontium, within the religious procession held each year on 11 January. Its main thoroughfare
was the Argiletum, which crossed the neighborhood. The Argiletum divided the Cispium area in two: the
Vicus Patricius, directed towards the Republican Walls’s Porta Viminalis, and the Clivus Suburanus, in the
direction of the Porta Esquilina. On the Subura: Richardson 1992: 373.
20
At the beginning the civil strife was concentrated on Rome itself, between the Senatorial aristocracy
and the other classes, as the equites. These civil wars were dominated first by the Gracchi, between the years
133 and 124-121 B.C.E., then at the beginning of the first century B.C.E. by Marius and Sulla, ending in
Sulla’s dictatorship between 82 and 79 B.C.E. Later on this conflict intermingled with a war between Rome
and its Italic allies, the Bellum Sociale, between 91 and 89 B.C.E. After some years of respite, the civil strife
erupted once more between Pompey and Julius Caesar in 49 B.C.E., ending in the victory of the former.
Caesar’s murder in 44 B.C.E. brought a third wave of civil wars, first between Caesar’s murderers, Brutus
and Cassius, and his heirs, Anthony and the young Octavian, Caesar’s adopted son, then between Anthony
and Octavian. The civil wars ended in the victory of Octavian in 30 B.C.E.: Cary – Scullard 1986: 203-211,
222-239, 270-282, 283-298. Cf. Gruen 1974: 405-497.
12
SSamuelSaSamu
riod Rome continued the expansion in the West and in the East, although the various civil
clashes slowed this down. Hasmonean Judaea did not escape the fate of its neighbors, as
Pompey conquered Judaea in 63 B.C.E. Although Judaea was much reduced in size, it
was not annexed to Rome. In this period much more than before, various foreigners, in
most cases provincials, settled in Rome, including of course Jews.21
Thus, the main characteristic of the last years of the Roman Republic, the so-called
Late Republic, was a slow development of the Jewish settlement at Rome, brought on by
the arrival of two waves of Jewish prisoners of war from Judaea in 63 and 53-51 B.C.E.
After the fall of Jerusalem, Pompey’s triumph brought to Rome many prisoners as well
as Aristobulus II. It seems that by then there were already some Jews living in Rome, as
Cicero suggests in Pro Flacco.22 Philo is therefore probably right that the Jewish community in Rome was created by the influx of prisoners brought there by Pompey.23 There
is no data on the exact number of prisoners brought by Pompey to Rome. Was it hundreds or thousands? How many were already sold in the slave markets of the East? Of the
Jewish prisoners who reached the shores of Italy, the vast majority would have been sold
to villa owners, and only a small minority would have reached Rome as domestic slaves.
Therefore, although most of the prisoners would have been sold to villa owners, and thus
would have spent their life far away from Rome, in rustic villae, enclosed in ergastula,
and therefore cut off from Jewish life, some would surely have arrived in Rome.24 After
some years some of those prisoners would have been freed, and as liberti, they would
have become de facto Roman citizens. Yet it is important to emphasize two main points.
The first is that most of these prisoners were men, as they were captured during the fighting. Second, since the prisoners came only from Jerusalem, as I mentioned before, we
must presume that their numbers could be counted in the hundreds, not in the thousands.
For a while the influx of slaves from Judaea stops. It seems that the commotion brought
by Alexander, Aristobulus’ son, who tried to seize power in Judaea in 57 B.C.E., and
later in 56 B.C.E. by Aristobulus II, who escaped from Rome, and his son Antigonus,
did not bring any more prisoners, with the exception of Aristobulus II himself, who was
sent back to Rome.25 There is no hint in Josephus that Gabinius brought any Jewish
slaves to the Roman market after these rebellions, but as we shall see he had his interests.
The next influx of prisoners was only in 53-51 B.C.E., when C. Cassius Longinus, the
21
In the West, Northern Gaul was annexed in 50 B.C.E. In the East, after the Mithridatic wars, Bythinia,
Crete, Cyrene, and Syria were annexed between 75 and 63 B.C.E. One of the consequences of Pompey’s
campaign in Syria was his meddling in the civil strife in Hasmonean Judaea, between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus. Therefore, Pompey besieged and conquered Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E. The period ends with Octavianus’
annexation of Ptolemaic Egypt in 30 B.C.E.: Cary – Scullard 1986: 250-256, 295-297.
22
An interesting example of a Syrian living in Rome was the prophetess Martha, who advised Marius:
Plutarch, Marius 17.
23
See Philo, Leg. Ad Gaium 23, 155.
24
Brunt 1980: 81-100. Brunt’s main source is Suetonius, Vespasianus 18. In Republican Rome public
works were organized by censors and other magistrates. In Imperial Rome, at first imperial freedmen were
given the direction of public works, later equites were chosen from the Flavii onwards. Still specific sectors,
such as the water supply and the road system, were in the hands of senatorial magistrates, as the curatoers
viarum and curatores aquarum. These contractors mainly utilized free skilled labor coming from collegia.
But even Brunt admits that a small percentage of unskilled laborers were slaves. Brunt thus stresses that free
labor was both available and cheap.
25
Josephus, BJ 1, 160-168, 174; AJ 11, 82-89, 97; Dio Cass. 39, 56, 6.
In the Beginning: the Jews as a Minority Group in the Middle and the Late Republican Period
13
quaestor of Crassus in Syria, had to face the rebellion of a certain Pitholaus, who was
probably a supporter of Aristobulus II. Pitholaus was executed, and around 30,000 of his
supporters were sold into slavery.26 This time Josephus gives clear information. Of these
30,000 it is probable that only a few hundred, maybe a thousand reached Rome.
However, it is probable that other Jews reached Rome as immigrants. Together with
Jews, probably still one of the smallest immigrant groups, there were many Italics –
probably the greatest group, as they received Roman citizenship a few years early, and
thus immigration to Rome gave them many opportunities – as well as Greeks coming
from Achaia and Asia, and Syrians. With the exception of Italics, very few foreigners
held Roman citizenship. Most were slaves or peregrini. From the West there were already Spaniards, some of them holding Roman citizenship, Gauls, and of course Cimbri
and Teutoni slaves.27 Thus, by the end of the Roman Republic, it is probable that the
Jewish community in Rome would have numbered no more than a few thousand. Most
of the Jews living in Rome would have been peregrini, some slaves, and a few of them,
as liberti, would have been Roman citizens. Their total number, probably no more than
a few thousand, showed that they were still a small minority within a total population
that reached between half and three quarters of a million.28 It seems to me that their area
of residence was still the Subura, as physically Rome did not change much between the
Middle and Late Republic.29
2.B. The Perception of the Jew as the other during the Late Republic
How were Jews seen by the surrounding Romans? By the second half of the first
century B.C.E., the writings of Varro and Cicero reflect a primary knowledge of Judaism
in Varro, and clear awareness of a Jewish presence in Rome, albeit still relatively insignificant, even if Cicero wishes us to think differently.
Varro’s passages on the Jewish God were conserved by Augustinus. Varrus (11627 B.C.E.) was a known antiquarian, renowned for his vast erudition. In his book Res
Divinae in Antiquitates Rerum Humanarum et Divinarum, compiled between 63 and
47 B.C.E., Varro tries to give a compendium of Roman religion.30 Varro’s attitude towards the Jewish God stands out against the passages of Manetho and even the relatively
positive ones of Hecateus. In these passages, Varro compares the concept of divine in the
Jewish and Roman religions. He focuses on the lack of Jewish images in the Jewish religion. According to Varro, the Jews, like the earlier Romans, did not set up any image of
the gods. He continues with an interesting remark on the fact that, like the Roman cult, it
developed from an aniconic cult to a cult of images. Therefore, he argues, once the gods
Josephus, BJ 1, 180; AJ 14, 119-122.
On foreign groups in Rome, mainly Gauls and Spaniards, see Noy 2000: 205-211. On immigrants
from Germany and the Danube: Noy 2000: 212-222.
28
Robinson 1992: 8.
29
On the new monumental structures erected by Pompey – the Theatre of Pompey – and by Caesar – the
Forum Iulium – see Zanker 1989: 25, 29, 117.
30
Augustinus, De Civitate Dei 4, 31; De Consensu Evangelistarum 1, 22, 30; 1, 23, 31; Stern 1974:
207-210, nos. 72a, 72b, 72c.
26
27
14
SSamuelSaSamu
were worshipped through images, the worshippers were less devout, there was less reverence for the gods, and the images themselves inspired contempt. Furthermore, Varro
complains that the Romans did not worship their gods in the same way, and somehow
rightly, as the Jews do with their own God, but they set up images of their gods, contrary
to the customs of old. This resulted in the fact that by now Roman religion and Roman
gods were held in contempt and even hated. It is therefore possible to argue that Judaism,
according to Varro, was much in line with the mos maiorum. Varro’s writing is indeed
important. It shows that a very conservative Roman aristocrat, attached to the archaic
ethos of Republican Rome, could be very impressed by Judaism. Even more, comparing Judaism to contemporary Roman religious customs, the latter are seen lacking in
comparison to Judaism. Thus, it is possible to say that this passage by Varro is one of the
most sympathetic statements from a Pagan writer on the Jewish religion. Varro depicts
the Jews as much more attached to their tradition – and for such a traditionalist this was
a very positive attitude – than the Romans of his own days. As I wrote before, a further
approach in the understanding of the peculiarity of the Jewish God and its integration
into the Graeco-Roman pantheon was to present the Jewish God as the highest of all
gods and assimilate him with Zeus, or in this case with Jupiter. Thus, in another passage,
Varro compares and assimilates the Latin-Roman Jupiter to the Jewish God. He writes
that “the God of the Jews is the same as Jupiter, as it makes no difference by which name
he is called, so long as the same thing is understood.” Here Varro does not just equate
the Jewish God with the head of the Roman pantheon, but he also, as various Stoic
philosophers did before, tries to show that the Divine force worshipped by the various
peoples – each under his own name, and in a separate and different manner – is in fact
the same God. Varro therefore proposes a very simple equation: as Jupiter is the highest
god for the Romans, and the Jews worship the highest god, Summum Deum, therefore
the God of the Jews must be identified with Jupiter. Thus Varro differentiates between
the conception of Summum Deum, a more important god among other lesser gods, and
that of Unum Deum, who exists alone and unique without other gods. Did Varro read or
know from secondary sources, Hellenistic-Jewish literature, who illustrated the conception of the Summum Deum to the surrounding Greek intellectual elite? As he was known
for his great erudition, this is quite possible. However, one concluding remark is necessary. Varro does not write of Jews, but only of Judaism.31 His remarks concern only the
concept of God in Jewish religion. Which opinion did he hold of the Jews as a people,
especially as he was writing in a period of conflict between the Roman Republic and
Hasmonean Judaea?32
To Varro’s positive approach towards Judaism, we must compare Cicero’s very negative approach to Judaism and to the Jews as a group. In Cicero’s Pro Flacco, it is possible
to see a certain prejudicial view of Judaism, possibly shared by part of the Roman ruling
class, which can even be defined as opposite to Varro’s view of Judaism.33 Thus Cicero
31
On Varro, see Schäfer 1997: 36-38; Barclay 1998: 286. According to Barclay it is striking that Varro,
champion of ancient Roman mores, honored Judaism. But why? It is possible that Varro saw in Judaism an
ethos similar to that of the Roman Senatorial aristocracy once championed by Cato the Elder.
32
Pucci Ben Zeev (1987: 340), who argues that the positive attitude of Varro towards Judaism does not
necessarily indicate a positive attitude towards Jews.
33
Cicero, Pro Flacco 28: 66-69; Stern 1974: 196-201, no. 68.
In the Beginning: the Jews as a Minority Group in the Middle and the Late Republican Period
15
defines Judaism as a “barbaric superstition.” Cicero in fact concludes his peroration by
writing that “even while Jerusalem was standing and the Jews were at peace with us,
the practice of their sacred rites (religio sacrorum) was at variance with the glory of our
empire, the dignity of our name (gravitas nomine nostri), the custom of our ancestors
(maiorum institutis).” It is interesting that Cicero adds that the Jewish nation showed “by
its armed resistance” what they thought of Roman rule.34 Indeed it is clear that Cicero’s
definition of Judaism as barbara superstitio is a far cry from Varro’s writings. There is
no doubt that Cicero therefore dismisses Judaism as a barbaric superstition. Likewise, he
points out to his audience that Judaism was opposed not just to the Roman domination,
to which they offered armed resistance, but also to Roman traditional values. Barclay
can therefore argue that an important feature of Pro Flacco is that Judaism is presented
as alien to the Roman ethos and to their power. According to Cicero’s rhetoric skill,
Judaism can thus undermine Roman customs. Like most of the members of the Roman
elite, Cicero tends to identify Roman religion with Roman military power. As Roman
military victories resulted in the subjugation of peoples with different religious beliefs,
Roman religion and piety was superior to that of the vanquished peoples. As the Jews
lost to Pompey’s army, the obvious consequence was that Jewish religion was inferior.35
Yet, contrary to Varro, it seems that Cicero does not know much about Judaism, and its
peculiar characteristics, as these are not mentioned. No less strikingly, Cicero, who also
had philosophical interests, and who wrote much about philosophy, never mentions the
Jewish God. This may indeed indicate that Cicero’s attack on Judaism was motivated by
the political circumstances, and not by personal feelings towards something he did not
know.
Judaism is not the only victim of the rhetoric of Cicero, but the Jews as a people are
also badly depicted. In De provinciis consularibus, Cicero defined the Jews as “born to be
slaves.” Various scholars, such as Stern, tried to show that Cicero had no Judaeophobia.
These scholars rightly point out that abuse of the other side is common in any oration.
Thus Stern can demonstrate that the Jews, who were abused by Cicero’s oratory, are not
presented differently than other foreigners, such as Asian Greeks, Gauls and Sardinians.
In other words, Jews were not abused because they were Jews, but because they were the
“other.” Clearly, Cicero’s prejudice is xenophobic, not Judaeophobic.36 And yet it seems
to me that indeed if Cicero’s words were to be effective, they had to fall on a receptive
ear. Thus the characterization of Judaism as Barbarian superstition and as opposed to
Rome’s traditional values and political power was a prejudice probably found between
other members of the Roman ruling. However, this is hardly Judaeophobic prejudice, as
Pucci Ben Zeev also argues, as most of the foreigners in contact with Rome were characterized in a similar way, including the Greeks, often dismissed as Graeculi.37 Moreover,
as Stern emphasizes, this oration had been written just a few years after the clash be Cicero, Pro Flacco 28: 67-69; Stern 1974: 198-201, no. 68.
Barclay 1998: 287-288.
36
On the bad treatment of Gauls in Cicero’s Pro Fonteio, of Sardinians in Pro Scauro, and of Greek
Asians in Pro Flacco, see Stern 1974: 194. See also Haskell 1942. Haskell presumes that there were Jewish
businessmen in Rome with political power, who were rivals of the equites in Rome. However, there is no hint
that the Jews living in Rome were in any important position or business. Of course, Haskell is just projecting
contemporary prejudices on the past.
37
Pucci Ben Zeev 1987: 338-340.
34
35
16
SSamuelSaSamu
tween Pompey and Aristobulus II. The Jews were seen in the eyes of many members of
the ruling class of Rome as an enemy just crushed by Roman might. As we shall see in
a period of peace between Judaea and Rome, as in the Augustan Period, the remarks of
contemporary Roman literary sources bear no hostility to the Jews living among them,
but just reflect the novelty of Judaism, whose customs are indeed seen as exotic.
2.C. The Jews in the Politics of the Late Republic
How did the Jews living in Rome fared in the period that Gruen dramatically defines
as the Last Generation of the Roman Republic? Were the Jews living in the Rome of the
Late Republic active in politics? The most important sources on their participation in the
political life of the city in the years before the civil war between Pompey and Caesar are
Cicero, already quoted, and Suetonius. It seems to me that Cicero’s Pro Flacco must be
read carefully in the light of the clientela obligations, patronus – cliens, which permeated Roman society. Thus Pro Flacco, carefully analyzed by Stern, presents us with much
data on the Jews living in Rome.38 Some of it can help us in reconstructing the legal and
social position of the Jews living in Rome in 59 B.C.E. Cicero writes, therefore, that the
Jews “stick together,” that “every year it was customary to send gold to Jerusalem on
the order of the Jews from Italy and from all our provinces.”39 Reading Cicero, one thus
gets the impression that the Jews living in Rome in 59 B.C.E. had a certain type of communal life, as the reader was accustomed to thinking that the Jews “stuck together,” and
that every year they sent a half-shekel from Rome as well as from Italy to the Jerusalem
Temple.40 This could have been possible only if the Jews of Rome had been organized
together in some way, as to collect money from various sources, deposit it and send it all
together, thus organizing the effort through land or sea to Judaea and Jerusalem, could
be done only through a communitarian effort. We must therefore point out that it seems
that the Jewish community of Rome in the Late Republic was organized along informal
lines, although the Jews had the right as individuals or as a group to send the half-shekel
to the Jerusalem Temple.
However, Cicero’s text is important because it shows the political activities of the
Jews. Cicero thus accuses Laelius, who directed the defense that brought the Jews, knowing “what a big crowd (turba)” it was, and “how influential they are in informal assemblies (contiones).” Cicero hints that the Jews could be brought together to form a crowd,
and that they could be active in informal assemblies. Contiones, a term that generally
indicates informal assemblies, as opposed to comitia, or the legally recognized organization of the Roman people to elect magistrates and to vote a law, does not just indicate
38
The speech Pro Flacco was delivered in 59 B.C.E. on the Aurelian Steps, as Cicero himself suggests.
It seems that the Jews were instrumental for the accuser in prosecuting the propraetor Flaccus, who ruled Asia
in 60 B.C.E. He was sued by Laelius, who acted on behalf of the cities of the province of Asia, on the charge
“de repentundis”: Cicero, Pro Flacco, 28: 66-69; Stern 1974: 196-201, no. 68; Leon 1995: 5-9.
39
Cicero, Pro Flacco 28: 66-69.
40
On Cicero, see Barclay 1998: 287-288. Barclay points out that Jews stick together. Cicero, as source,
indicates that the Jews were sufficiently well established in Rome to send money each year to Jerusalem.
Moreover, Cicero points to the social cohesion.
In the Beginning: the Jews as a Minority Group in the Middle and the Late Republican Period
17
that Jews were active in politics. First, it makes clear that most of the Jews involved were
just foreigners or liberti, who did not have the right to take part in comitia. Excluded
from this group, of course, are the Jews who were slaves, and the few Jews who were
Roman citizens. As slaves, the former could not have taken part in these assemblies, and
the latter were too few to influence a contio, and in any case they could participate in the
various comitia.41 However, Cicero is impressed that the Jews stuck together and formed
a crowd. Yet it seems to me that it is quite possible that the Jews’ behavior was not because
they supported the populares, as an organized community along formal or informal lines,
but because as Jews they had a certain clientar obligation. I suspect that the only people
towards whom the Jews had such obligations were Pompey and Gabinius. Pompey, after
he defeated Aristobulus II, had Hyrcanus appointed as High Priest of Judaea. Clearly the
Judaean ruler, at least till Pharsalus, was his cliens, as also Appianus hints in his book
dedicated to the Civil War.42 Moreover, Cicero is not the only one to point to Pompey’s
respect for the Temple, which was not robbed. Josephus too, in both Antiquities and
War, points to Pompey’s respect for Judaism. Probably the Roman warlord was wise
enough to know that the Jews could in future serve him as clientes.43 It seems that, as
Josephus hints, Hyrcanus II collaborated with Gabinius as well, during the later tenure in 58 B.C.E. in his campaign against Ptolemaic Egypt.44 The Jews living in Rome,
therefore, would have been clientes of Pompey, as their far away ruler, the High Priest
Hyrcanus II, to whom they sent their half-shekel every year, was his cliens. Moreover,
Pompey was probably the only politician who could have pushed for the legalization of
the Jews’ right to send money from Rome to the Temple. It is possible that some of the
Jews would later become clientes of Gabinius as well. Although Gabinius was in the East
as consul in 58 B.C.E., prior to this he was with Pompey as one of his legati. It is worth
remembering that in the period when Cicero wrote the Pro Flacco, neither Pompey nor
Gabinius were exactly on good terms with Cicero. In 58 B.C.E., therefore, when Cicero
was exiled, under the consulship of Gabinius and Piso, Pompey did not help Cicero in
any way.45 There are various hints on the bad relationship between Cicero and Pompey
41
Noy (2000: 256) emphasizes that the Jews who were politically active in 59 B.C.E. were probably
citizens. Thus, this group cannot refer to the Jewish slaves manumitted by Pompey. But these are contiones,
thus open to liberti as well as peregrine. Noy points out that the presence of Jewish liberti in Rome suggests
their use as skilled laborers and not as forced labor. Pompey prisoners would have added to the existing community.
42
According to Appian, Hyrcanus II’s soldiers could be found in Pompey’s army fighting at Pharsalus.
This implies only that Hyrcanus, as cliens of Pompey, had to take his side during the civil war against Caesar.
Obviously Pompey’s death absolved Hyrcanus II from any further obligation towards Pompey or his party:
Appian, Civil Wars 2, 71. The Jews appear in a list of Pompey Eastern allies as “Hebrews.”
43
See Josephus, BJ 1, 153; AJ 14, 72.
44
According to Josephus (AJ 14, 98-99), Gabinius was assisted by Antipater and Hyrcanus in his campaign against Egypt. He was supplied with grain, arms and money by Antipater. Moreover, the Jews of Pelusium were won over and acted as guards of entrances to Egypt.
45
Pompey was supported in 67 B.C.E. in his bid for the East by Aulus Gabinius, who pushed the Lex
Gabinia in the Senate to give him command of the East. Gabinius followed Pompey in the East. In 62 B.C.E.,
once returned from the East, although according to Cicero no longer a leader of the populares (Cicero, Letters
ad Atticum 2. 1. 6), Pompey made two requests: land for his veterans and ratification for his eastern arrangements. Pompey was frustrated till 60 B.C.E. in his requests by the Metelli, aided by Lucullus and Cato. However, in 60 B.C.E. he was reconciled to Crassus by Caesar, and in 59 B.C.E., the three formed the informal
First Triumvirate. His demands were satisfied by Caesar as consul. Pompey did not help Cicero in 58 B.C.E.,
18
SSamuelSaSamu
and between Cicero and Gabinius. For example, Cicero calls Pompey the “Jerusalemite
plebeian monger” in a letter to Atticus.46 Cicero also complains about Gabinius in his
oration De Provinciis Consularibus, as he discriminated against Roman revenue farmers
in favor of native Syrians and Jews during his tenure of Syria.47 It is interesting that both
Cicero’s passages mention Jews. So were Pompey and Gabinius known to have Jewish
clientes? It seems to me that the answer must be positive.
If, though, in 59 B.C.E. the Jews of Rome were found as clients of Pompey, in
44 B.C.E., according to Suetonius, they mourned the murder of Julius Caesar, Pompey’s
enemy. Clearly by then the Jewish community of Rome had switched its clientele allegiance to Julius Caesar.48 In fact, the Jews living in Rome just followed the steps of their
leader in Judaea, the High Priest Hyrcanus II, who switched his allegiance from Pompey
to Julius Caesar after the latter’s defeat at Pharsalus. It seems that Caesar tried to gather
the support of the Jews living in Rome even at the beginning of the Civil War. Therefore,
he showed his support for the Hasmonean pretender Aristobulus II, then living in exile
in Rome. He sent Aristobulus with two legions to Syria, but he was poisoned by the
Pompeians. His son Alexander met a similar fate, as he was soon afterwards beheaded
by Scipio at Antioch.49 Julius Caesar could not have done otherwise, as Hyrcanus II,
the legitimate Hasmonean ruler, stood firm by Pompey. Appianus indeed testifies that a
Jewish contingent fought at Pharsalus on Pompey’s side.50 However, Pompey’s defeat
at Pharsalus and his death in Egypt soon afterwards freed Hyrcanus II from his clientar
obligations towards him. However, as I wrote before, the Jewish High Priest still had
his obligations towards Gabinius, who sided with Julius Caesar. As long as Pompey was
alive, it was clear to Hyrcanus II that the obligations of his clientar with him were much
more important than those with Gabinius. However, once Pompey was dead, Hyrcanus
II could switch side quite easily. It is therefore likely that Hyrcanus II became a cliens of
Julius Caesar through the offices of Gabinius that took the side of Caesar during the civil
war. The Jewish community in Rome probably did the same. However, it is difficult to
establish whether the Jewish community took the side of Caesar at the beginning of the
when the tribune Clodius had him sent into exile, under the consulate of Gabinius and Piso. The same year,
Aulus Gabinius was appointed consul and given the province of Syria in 58 B.C.E. Gabinius was an enemy of
Cicero, although Pompey had Cicero defend him when he was prosecuted de repetundis, back from the East.
However, in 57 B.C.E. Pompey secured Cicero’s return from exile, and in exchange he received control of the
corn supply for five years with the proconsular imperium. On the lex Gabinia, see Gruen 1974: 131; on the
relationship between Gabinius and Pompey: Gruen 1974: 63, 66, 106, 110, 111, 131, 143, 144, 213, 227, 322.
46
Cicero, Ad Att. 2,9,1. Cicero calls Pompey “Hierosolymarius traductor ad plebem”: Stern 1974: 201202, no. 69.
47
Cicero, De Provinciis Consularibus 5,10: “He (Gabinius) handed over as slaves to Jews and Syrians, themselves peoples born to be slaves”; Stern 1974: 202-204, no. 70. Cicero wrote this oration against
Gabinius in 56 B.C.E., when he was back from the East. In the oration Cicero complained that the mandate
to Gabinius in Syria could not be prolonged as he had shown an improper attitude to the publicani, and had
caused their financial ruin, surrendering them to Jews and Syrians. It indeed seems that Gabinius probably
handed the taxation to the locals, and not to tax farmers from Rome, cf. Dio Cass., 39, 56, 5-6.
48
Suetonius, Divus Iulius 84, 5.
49
Julius Caesar tried to release Aristobulus II, who was poisoned: Josephus, AJ 14, 123-125. On Aristobulus II in Rome: Noy 2000: 107, 191, and 267. His status as hostage and not as ambassador is emphasized
by Noy (2000: 107). Aristobulus II’s body was embalmed in honey and thus transported back to Judaea: Noy
2000: 191.
50
Appian, Civil Wars 2, 71.
In the Beginning: the Jews as a Minority Group in the Middle and the Late Republican Period
19
Civil War, when the latter showed his support of Aristobulus II, or only after Hyrcanus
formally took the side of Julius Caesar. In any case, the result was positive for Hyrcanus
II51 as well as the Jewish community of Rome. In fact, as we shall see, Caesar bestowed
a series of legal privileges to the Jews living in the cities of the Roman province of Asia
that legalized the position of the Jews as a group in Roman Italy collegia licita.52 No
wonder that Suetonius reports the sincere mourning of the Jews at the funeral pyre of
Caesar.53
2.D. Caesar and the legal definition of Jewish communities in Italy
as collegia licita
The legal framework and organization of the Jewish communities in Roman Italy,
which became apparent only in the last years of the Late Republic, originated in the
Hellenistic East, and were influenced by the legal status of the Jewish community. In the
Hellenistic-Roman world the Jewish community, or proseuche, was first of all a voluntary association.54 The Jews living in the Greek Diaspora in the Hellenistic Period were
organized around the politeuma, an institution with a clear public character, recognized
by the ruler.55 The institutions of the Jewish politeuma therefore reproduced at a communitarian level the same institutions of the Greek polis where the Jews lived.56 However,
by the end of the first century B.C.E., with the Roman conquest of the Hellenistic East,
the situation changed. Rome, which left less autonomy to the citizens of the various
Greek city states than the earlier Hellenistic rulers, could not tolerate a full-fledged political institution like the politeuma, but the various communities had to content themselves
with much less influential communitarian frameworks. The less important thiasos, a voluntary association with a much clearer private character, generally much smaller than the
51
On the help given by Hyrcanus II to Caesar during the war: Josephus, BJ 1, 187-194; AJ 14, 127-139.
On the appointment of Hyrcanus as ethnarch and of Antipater as epitropos: Josephus, BJ 1, 194-195, AJ 14,
137, 143-144.
52
Josephus, AJ 14, 190-229, 235, 247-254, 259-261 on the privileges given by Julius Caesar to the Jews
of Asia. On Julius Caesar’s legislation on collegia: Suetonius, Iulius Caesar 42. See also Momigliano 1931:
283-292 = Momigliano 1966: 523-533.
53
Suetonius, Divus Iulius 84, 5: “At the height of the public grief a throng of foreigners went about
lamenting each other after the fashion of this country, above all the Jews, who even flocked to the funeral
pyre for several successive nights”; Stern 1980: 109-110, no. 302. On the Jews at Rome and Julius Caesar:
Leon 1995: 9-10.
54
On voluntary associations in the Hellenistic Roman world, see Wilson 1996: 1-15.
55
The word politeuma, from the Greek polis, or city-state, points to a small microcosm, which reproduces the surrounding urban society. Therefore, the politeuma was an institution not peculiar to the Jews, but
to any group of Greeks, or Hellenized ethne, that wished to conserve their traditions and internal jurisdiction
in a new foundation as Alexandria or Antioch. Thus politeumata of Macedonians as well as Thracians or
Athenians are also recorded. On the politeuma in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Mélèze Modrzejewski 1993.
56
At the head of a politeuma stood one or more archisynagogoi, in the same way as at the head of a citystate stood the archontes. Often a coopted gerousia, or council of the elders, generally dominated the politeuma, in the same way as the boulé, or city senate, dominated the late Hellenistic polis. The Jewish officials
who headed the politeuma were indeed styled as archontes, or ethnarch in Alexandria: Gruen 2002: 114-115.
On the Jewish politeumata, see Tcherikover 1979.
20
SSamuelSaSamu
politeuma, took the place of the politeuma.57 By the beginning of the first century C.E.
in the Greek East, therefore, the Jewish community had to function under the diminished
jurisdiction of the thiasoi, and not the politeumata.
As I wrote previously, until the last half of the first century B.C.E. it is not possible to
speak of an organized Jewish community in Rome, for the simple reason that the Jewish
presence in Rome was minimal. In Late Republican Rome the natural framework for the
Jewish community, as a legal recognized organization, would have been the collegium,
the Roman counterpart of the Greco-Hellenistic thiasos. However, the collegia, or the
corporate bodies, which were in the Roman Republic the framework for any type of
communal organization, were in fact forbidden in the last years of the late Republic. In
64 B.C.E. the Senate prohibited all the collegia as sources of social turbulence. Although
in 58 B.C.E. the collegia were permitted once again, when the Republic was dominated
by the First Triumvirate composed of Pompey, Crassus and Caesar, in 56 B.C.E. the Senate once more dissolved the collegia, as these were seen as political clubs, and a hotbed
of sedition. Moreover the following year Crassus passed a further law against the illegal
activities of certain political sodalitates that were responsible for organized bribery.58 Yet
Cicero could write that the Jews “stick together” and that “every year it was customary to
send gold to Jerusalem on the order of the Jews from Italy and from all our provinces.” 59
Therefore, the impression that Cicero wished to convey to his public was that the Jews,
even if collegia were illegal, somehow possessed a communitarian organization. As I
mentioned previously, though, most of the Jews that arrived in Roman Italy were by
now clientes of Pompey, and later on of Aulus Gabinius. Therefore, the Jews possessed
an informal communitarian organization, as they could associate and send their monies
not as part of forbidden collegia, but as a clientar group, protected by a powerful patronus. Their patroni probably took on themselves that the Jews, as individuals, and not as
a group, could send their monies, the half-shekel to Jerusalem, and that they could meet
together, informally, to read the Torah on Shabbat. In exchange the Jews would have
fulfilled all their clientele obligations towards their patroni.
We can therefore say then that the legal and successful framework for a communitarian organization would be created only during Caesar’s dictatorship, which passed
various laws on the organization and legitimacy of the collegia.60 Thus, although Caesar in fact restricted the number and the activities of the collegia in Rome, the Roman
leader viewed the Jewish proseuchai as licit and legal private societies, or collegia licita.
In fact, according to Richardson, there is a real justification in regarding Jewish communities as collegia licita possessing a special status.61 Hence, during the years 49-44
B.C.E., Caesar renewed with the lex Iulia the earlier prohibitions passed by the Senate
against the various corporate organizations and guilds or collegia, dissolving most of the
On the thiasos, see Kloppenborg 1996: 16-30.
Colter 1996: 75-76.
59
Cicero, Pro Flacco 28: 66-69; Stern 1974: 196-201, no. 68.
60
On Julius Caesar and the Jews: Josephus, BJ 2, 80; AJ 14, 216; 17, 300.
61
Colter 1996: 74-89; Richardson 1996: 90-109. See also Pucci Ben Zeev 1995: 31-34. She argues
that the right of assembly given to the Jews first by Caesar and then by Augustus must indeed be considered
a privilege.
57
58
In the Beginning: the Jews as a Minority Group in the Middle and the Late Republican Period
21
collegia, with the exception of the oldest.62 It seems, however, that the Roman dictator
legalized the Jewish communities in Rome as collegia licita. The only document, quoted
by Josephus, which refers to the privileges given by Caesar specifically to the Jewish
communities of Roman Italy is a decree sent by Publius Servilius Isauricus to the city of
Parium in 44 B.C.E. slightly after Caesar’s murder. This document is part of a collection
of various decrees collected by Josephus which concern the Jewish communities of the
Province of Asia, dated to the years of the dictatorship of Julius Caesar. All these documents, which record an ad hoc intervention of Roman authorities in local politics in the
Province of Asia on behalf of the Jewish communities, mention the privileges granted to
the Jewish communities of Asia Minor. Some of these decrees deal with the right of the
Jews living in various cities in the province of Asia to associate in a voluntary corporate
framework. Generally speaking, these documents show that the Roman authorities permitted the local Jewish communities the right of association and to erect synagogues, the
right to decide civil cases according to ancestral law, and the right to observe the Shabbat
and to celebrate the “sacred services to God and the customary festivals and other religious gatherings in accordance with native laws,” without being harassed. Other rights
mentioned in this collection include the right to send offerings, presumably to Jerusalem,
and to defer court appearances on the Shabbat. Last but not least, the city’s agoranomoi are charged with bringing food suitable for the Jews to the market.63 These various
privileges have been analyzed by various scholars such as Juster, Rajak, Richardson, and
Pucci Ben Zeev.64 The decree, which concerns the Jews living in Parium, mentions only
indirectly the legal privileges enjoyed by the Jewish communities of Roman Italy. However, a careful reading of the decree allows us to understand the privileges enjoyed by the
Jewish communities of Roman Italy in the framework of collegia licita in the last years
of the Republic.65 The decree states clearly that although in the Lex Iulia Julius Caesar
forbade all religious societies, or collegia, which Josephus calls thiasoi, an exception
was made for the Jews living in Roman Italy, who were permitted to assemble, collect
contributions of money, probably for the Temple of Jerusalem, and hold common meals.
Thus, according to Josephus, the Jews in Rome “lived in accordance with their customs,
contributed money to common meals and sacred rites.” This is therefore indeed a change
in the legal status of the Jews living in Rome. It is possible that this decree, which recognized the Jewish communities as legal entities, or collegia licita, were part of a Senatus
62
Suetonius, Divus Iulius 42: “cuncta collegia praeter antiquitus constituta distraxit.” The text of the Lex
Iulia is no longer extant.
63
This group of decrees deals with the right of association of the Jews, living in various cities in the
province of Asia. The Roman authorities intervened to defend the Jewish rights threatened by the municipal
authorities. These documents include a decree from Lucius Antonius, son of Mark Anthony, proquaestor and
propraetor to Sardis: Josephus, AJ 14, 235. This is followed by a letter of the local magistrates of Laodicaea
to the proconsul Caius Rabirius, and a letter of Publius Servilius Galba, proconsul in Asia, directed to Miletus: Josephus, AJ 14, 241-246. Josephus continues by quoting three decrees of the municipal authorities of
Halicarnassus, Sardis and Ephesus that permit Jews to observe their rites: Josephus, AJ 14, 256-264.
64
Juster 1914: 1-14 and 213-242; Rajak 1984: 107-123; Richardson 2004: 118-119. See also Pucci Ben
Zeev 1995b: 28-37; 1996: 71-91. Pucci Ben Zeev argues that these decrees are indeed authentic, and not
forgeries made by Josephus. However, these documents are not original, but are copies of copies, translated
into Greek, of authentic Roman decrees.
65
The decree of the praetor and consul Julius Caius, identified by Juster as Publius Servilius Isauricus,
is directed to the magistrates, council and people of Parium: Josephus, AJ 14, 210-212.
22
SSamuelSaSamu
Consultum, possibly that approved in the presence of the ambassadors of Hyrcanus II,
which registered Caesar’s decisions concerning Judaea proper. Therefore, Caesar, probably through the means of a senatus consultum, recognized the Jewish community or
communities living in Rome as legal entities, collegia licita.66
By the end of the Late Republic, moreover, Jews did not live only in Rome, but
elsewhere in Italy. Indeed, the only literary source in this period to attest the presence of
Jews anywhere else in Italy is Cicero.67 However, he is not specific on the whereabouts
of the Jews living in Italy. It is probable that Jews were settled at least in Puteoli and
Pompeii. The Jewish presence at Puteoli is confirmed by Josephus for the Augustan
Period. However, as in this period Puteoli was the harbor of Rome, it is probable that
some of the immigrants stopped at Puteoli, and did not reach Rome. The possible presence of Jews at Pompeii in this period is suggested by the well-known inscription of the
Synagogue of Theodotus, found in Jerusalem. Although the inscription is later, it records
a certain Theodotus, son of Vettenius. Some scholars connected Vettenius to the Vettii
family, one of the most important families of Pompeii.68 It is possibly that this Vettenius
was a libertus of the Vettii.
3. Conclusions
According to epigraphic data and the literary evidence presented by Valerius Maximus, who mentions the expulsion of Chaldeans and Jews in 139 B.C.E., by the second
half of the second century B.C.E. the Jews were a very small and marginal group of
foreigners living in Rome. However, by the middle of the first century B.C.E., there is
evidence of a much larger Jewish presence in Rome. According to Philo, most of the
Jews that reached the Italian shores were slaves who were brought in the wake of the
Pompey campaign in Judaea in 63 B.C.E. However, there were also some liberti and
a few peregrini, or immigrants. Most of them probably settled in the Subura. According
to Cicero, some Jews who were Roman citizens were active in politics. As most were
liberti of Pompey, and hence were bound by clientela with him, following the clienspatronus pattern which characterized the Roman world, at the beginning they took his
side. Only during the Civil War between Pompey and Julius Caesar did Jews as a group
switch sides to the latter, following the steps of their leader in Judaea, the High Priest
Hyrcanus II, probably through the intermediary of Gabinius.
The most important sources who can explain how Judaism and Jews were perceived
in Rome in the years of the Late Republic are Varro and Cicero. Varro’s attitude towards
the Jewish God stands out. In these passages, Varro focuses on the lack of Jewish images
in the Jewish religion. According to Varro, the Jews, as the earlier Romans, did not set up
any image of the gods. Varro’s writing shows that a very conservative Roman aristocrat,
66
The decree is mentioned by Josephus (AJ 14, 217-222). Concerning the Jews living in the Roman
Diaspora, the decree ordered that any decision in the internal life of the Jewish communities living in the
Roman Diaspora should be adjudicated by Hyrcanus II: Josephus, AJ 14, 190-212.
67
Cicero, Pro Flacco 28, 67: “... It was customary to send gold to Jerusalem on the order of the Jews
from Italy and from all our provinces…”
68
CIJ II, 332-335, no. 1404; Levine 2000: 52-58; Kloppenborg 2000: 243-280.
In the Beginning: the Jews as a Minority Group in the Middle and the Late Republican Period
23
attached to the archaic ethos of Republican Rome, could be very impressed by Judaism.
Yet to Varro, we must compare Cicero’s very negative approach to Judaism and Jews.
Pro Flacco reflects a negative view of Judaism, probably shared by part of the Roman
ruling class in this period. Cicero therefore characterizes Judaism as Barbarian superstition and depicts it as opposed to Rome’s traditional values. And yet, this can hardly
be characterized as Judaeophobia, but only as an ugly facet of xenophobia, as most of
the foreigners in contact with Rome were characterized in a similar way, including the
Greeks, often dismissed as Graeculi by the same Cicero.
Until the dictatorship of Caesar, the Jewish communities in Roman Italy were just informal associations. Yet its natural framework, as a legal recognized organization, would
have been the collegium. Indeed, between the years 49-44 B.C.E., through the lex Iulia,
Caesar recognized the Jewish communities as collegia licita, although he renewed the
earlier prohibitions passed by the Senate against the collegia, dissolving most of them.
Hence, according to the decree sent by Publius Servilius Isauricus to the city of Parium
in 44 B.C.E., the Lex Iulia accorded to the Jewish communities various privileges such
as the permission to assemble, the right to collect contribution of money for the Temple
of Jerusalem, and the permission to hold common meals. Augustus reconfirmed Caesar’s
legislation on the Jewish communities as corporate bodies. From then onwards till the
beginning of Late Antiquity, the collegia licita remained the legal framework which
defined the Jews as a group.
ABBREVIATIONS
CIJ – J.B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum, vol. 1-2, Roma 1936-1952.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barclay, J.M.G. (1998), Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE –
117 CE), Edinburgh.
Bickerman, E.J. (1980), The Altars of the Gentiles. A Note on the Jewish Ius Sacrum, [in:] E.J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, vol. II, Leiden: 329-335.
Brunt, P.A. (1980), Free Labor and Public Works at Rome, Journal of Roman Studies 70: 81-100.
Cary, M., Scullard, H.H. (1986), A History of Rome, London.
Colter, W. (1996), The Collegia and Roman Law: State Restrictions on Voluntary Associations, [in:]
J.S. Kloppenborg, S.G. Wilson (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, London: 74-89.
Comes, G. (1950), Valerio Massimo, Roma.
Cumont, F. (1929), Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, Paris.
Frey, J.B. (1975), Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum, vol. I, re-ed. by B. Lifshitz, New York.
Friggeri, R. (2003), La collezione epigrafica del Museo Nazionale Romano alle Terme di Diocleziano,
Roma.
Gruen, E.S. (1974), The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, Berkeley, CA.
Gruen, E.S. (2002), Diaspora. Jews amidst Greeks and Romans, Cambridge, MA.
Haskell, H.J. (1942), This Was Cicero, New York.
24
SSamuelSaSamu
Juster, J. (1914), Les Juifs dans l’Empire Romain. Leur condition juridique, économique et sociale,
vol. I-II, Paris.
Kloppenborg, J.S. (1996), Collegia and Thiasoi: Issues in Function, Taxonomy and Membership, [in:]
J.S. Kloppenborg, S.G. Wilson (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, London: 16-31.
Kloppenborg, J.S. (2000), Dating Theodotos (CIJ II 1404), Journal of Jewish Studies 51: 243-280.
Leon, H.J. (1995), The Jews of Ancient Rome, updated ed., Peabody, MA.
Levine, I.L. (2000), The Ancient Synagogue. The First Thousand Years, New York.
Mélèze Modrzejewski, J. (1993), The Jews of Egypt: from Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian, Philadelphia.
Momigliano, A. (1931), I nomi delle prime sinagoghe romane e la condizione giuridica della comunità
in Roma sotto Augusto, La Rassegna Mensile di Israel VI, 7: 283-292.
Momigliano, A. (1961), The Jews of Ancient Rome, A Review of H.J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome,
Philadelphia 1960, The Jewish Chronicle 15, December: 21, 38.
Momigliano, A. (1966), Terzo contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, Roma.
Momigliano, A. (1980), Sesto contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, Roma.
Morley, N. (1996), Metropolis and Hinterland: The City of Rome and the Italian Economy, 200 BC –
AD 200, Cambridge.
Nilsson, M.P. (1961), Geschichte der griechischen Religion, vol. 2, 2nd ed., München.
Noy, D. (2000), Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers, London.
Pucci Ben Zeev, M. (1987), Cosa pensavano i Romani degli Ebrei?, Athenaeum 75: 335-359.
Pucci Ben Zeev, M. (1995a), Did the Jews Enjoy a Privileged Position in the Roman World?, Revue des
Etudes Juives 154: 23-42.
Pucci Ben Zeev, M. (1995b), Caesar and Jewish Law, Revue Biblique 102: 28-37.
Pucci Ben Zeev, M. (1996), Caesar’s Decrees in the “Antiquities”: Josephus’ Forgeries or Authentic
Roman “Senatus Consulta”?, Athenaeum 84: 71-91.
Pucci Ben Zeev, M. (2001), Were They Seditious? The Jews of Rome in the Sixties BCE, Italia 13-15:
9-24.
Richardson, L. (1992), A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Baltimore.
Richardson, P. (1996), Early Synagogues as collegia in the Diaspora and Palestine, [in:] J.S. Kloppenborg, S.G., Wilson (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, London: 90-109.
Richardson, P. (2004), Building Jewish in the Roman East, Waco, TX.
Robinson, O.F. (1992), Ancient Rome, City Planning and Administration, London.
Schäfer, P. (1997), Judaeophobia: Attitudes towards Jews in the Ancient World, Cambridge, MA –
London.
Schürer, E. (1986), The History of the Jewish People in the age of Jesus Christ: 175 B.C. – A.D. 135,
revised and edited by G. Vérmes, F. Millar and M. Black, vol. 3 (1), Edinburgh 1987.
Stern, M. (1974), Greek and Roman Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. I, Jerusalem.
Stern, M. (1980), Greek and Roman Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. II, Jerusalem.
Tcherikover, V. (1979), Hellenistic Civilisation and the Jews, Philadelphia.
Wilson, S.G. (1996), Voluntary Associations: An Overview, [in:] J.S. Kloppenborg, S.G. Wilson (eds.),
Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, London: 1-15.
Zanker, P. (1989), Augusto e il potere delle immagini, Torino.